Ask FELTG Tackles Two Questions About Reasonable Accommodation

, ,

Q: An employee claims to have a family member with an underlying medical condition that makes him susceptible to severe COVID. May the agency ask for medical documentation about the family member’s condition, if that’s why the employee is seeking telework as a reasonable accommodation?

A: If the employee does not have a disability, then any step toward granting telework, including requesting medical documentation, is not part of the reasonable accommodation process because only qualified employees (or applicants) with disabilities are entitled to RA. See Key-Scott v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 0120100193 (2012).

You’ll need to check your agency’s policy for guidance about what is required to allow telework flexibilities for employees who live with individuals with underlying health conditions.

Q: If the agency grants telework as a provisional accommodation and it’s clear the accommodation is not working, how does the agency change the accommodation if the medical documentation states that telework is the recommended accommodation?

A: If the medical documentation recommends telework, the agency is not bound to provide telework if there is another affective accommodation that allows the employee to perform their job within their medical restrictions. If an accommodation is not working, then it is not an effective reasonable accommodation.

In a case where medical documentation recommends telework, at the outset the agency should request additional medical information related to the functional limitations the employee has, so that the agency can determine if an accommodation other than telework is appropriate.

The information presented here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Contacting FELTG in any way/format does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

And Now a Word With … MSPB Acting Chair Cathy Harris

,

By Dan Gephart, August 8, 2022

For five-plus years, we at FELTG and others have referred to the then-growing backlog of cases at the Merit Systems Protection Board with dread. So the enthusiasm with which MSPB Acting Chair Cathy Harris is approaching her new position, as evidenced by her appearance on the radio and here, is surprising. And refreshing. And very hopeful.

The Acting Chair said she was “honored and humbled to be nominated” by President Biden. “I am committed to doing the very best I can to protect the merit systems and achieve justice,” she told us. “What an incredible opportunity!”

Harris says “opportunity.” Others see challenge, to put it lightly. The new Board inherited a 3,500-case backlog, at which they’ve been dutifully whittling away. But there are some anxious employees and agencies, who have been waiting a long time for resolution of their cases. And new cases are coming in every day.

DG: What would you say to someone who has a Petition for Review and is wondering when the Board is going to get to it?

CH: We are diligently working to get to your case. The good news is that the career staff has done the work to prepare the Board members to be able to make efficient and thoughtful decisions, so we are not starting from scratch. That said, it is going to take time for us to consider and get to all the decisions that are awaiting our review. We don’t yet have an estimate as to when we will be able to project when we will get through the case inventory but am hoping we should be able to do that before too long.

DG: What are your thoughts about Federal Circuit decisions on issues that the Board didn’t have an opportunity to address (given the lack of a quorum) and their impact on future MSPB decisions?

CH: Appellants may take their cases directly to the Federal Circuit after a decision from an administrative judge. During the lack of a quorum, this enabled appellants to get appellate review of their cases. But appellants have this right even in the presence of a quorum, so the Board is accustomed to situations where it may not have had an opportunity to opine on certain issues.

DG: Is there any extra effort given to encourage settlement on backlogged cases?

CH: Yes. We are actively exploring ways in which we can identify cases that might be appropriate for settlement. We encourage parties to contact the PFR Settlement Program if they feel their case would be appropriate for mediation at this juncture. As time has passed and circumstances have changed, we understand it may be easier for parties to achieve a resolution now. Interested parties may contact the PFR Settlement Program at (800) 209-8960.

DG: Is the Board considering shortening decisions to speed up the backlog reduction?

CH: Yes. The Board will be issuing shorter decisions where appropriate.

DG: Is there a mechanism in place for giving feedback to administrative judges regarding the quality of their decisions?

CH: Yes. Internally, administrative judges receive instructive guidance through Board decisions. Further, pursuant to MSPB’s Judges’ Handbook, Chapter 12, Chief Administrative Judges review initial decisions written by administrative judges below the GS-15 grade level prior to issuance.

Chief Administrative Judges also review initial decisions for complex cases written by administrative judges at the GS-15 grade level prior to issuance. Other initial decisions are reviewed after issuance. Chief Administrative Judges and Regional Directors provide direct feedback to administrative judges regarding whether initial decisions sufficiently adhered to authorities such as the Judges’ Handbook, MSPB regulations, and relevant statutes and case law.

My message to all federal employees, not just supervisors, is: The Board is fully back, and we are committed to protecting the merit systems. Employees and supervisors would do well to educate themselves as to merit system principles and prohibited personnel practices. There is more information on these topics on our website.

[Editor’s note: See our previous interviews with Member Tristan Levitt and then-Acting-Chair Raymond Limon, and register for the MSPB and EEOC Case Law Update on August 31 from 3-4:15 pm ET, part of FELTG’s annual Federal Workplace 2022: Accountability, Challenges and Trends event, or MSPB Law Week September 12-16.] Gephart@FELTG.com

Affirmative Defenses: This One is for the Self-proclaimed MSPB Nerds 

,

By Deborah Hopkins, July 25, 2022

Did you happen to catch the latest precedent-altering MSPB decision related to affirmative defenses? This one’s a little weedy, but interesting nonetheless, especially to MSPB nerds like myself.

The appellant, a custodial laborer for the USPS, was removed on a charge of improper conduct with specifications including:

  • Telling a coworker that if his [the appellant’s] vehicle was towed from the agency parking lot again, he “would come into work and end up shooting someone out of revenge and anger.”
  • Telling the same coworker that he was having law enforcement follow her because of a verbal dispute the two had a year earlier and that the “only reason [he] didn’t have anything ‘bad’ happen to her was because she has children.”
  • Telling the same coworker, the following day, he was having law enforcement follow and harass a supervisor’s son in retaliation for his vehicle being towed from the agency parking lot and that he would make sure that the supervisor’s son was “booked” for “Driving Under the Influence … and other traffic violations.”

The appellant challenged his removal. In addition to claiming he did not engage in the activity leading to the charges, he also raised an affirmative defense of reprisal for prior protected activity – he had filed an MSPB appeal over an “emergency suspension” he received after the aforementioned misconduct occurred. (If you don’t know what an affirmative defense is, please join us for MSPB Law Week September 12-16 for all you need to know.)

The Administrative Judge (AJ) upheld the removal. However, his decision did not reference the affirmative defense, as that had not come up in any prehearing conference. On petition for review to the Board, the appellant challenged his removal, but did not challenge the fact that the AJ never addressed the affirmative defense.

You with me so far?

Before this case came out, precedential MSPB caselaw required the Board to remand cases for consideration of an appellant’s affirmative defense if the AJ failed to comply with certain procedural requirements. Wynn v. USPS, 2010 MSPB 214. The Board overturned Wynn and other related cases, establishing new criteria for the Board to consider in determining whether an AJ erred in not addressing an appellant’s affirmative defense at the hearing stage. As MSPB’s case report said in its summary, a potential remand hinges on the “ultimate question of whether an appellant demonstrated his intent to continue pursuing his affirmative defense, and whether he conveyed that intent after filing the initial appeal.”

Below is the non-exhaustive list of factors the Board will consider in determining whether a remand is appropriate:

(1) the thoroughness and clarity with which the appellant raised an affirmative defense;

(2) the degree to which the appellant continued to pursue the affirmative defense in the proceedings below after initially raising it;

(3) whether the appellant objected to a summary of the issues to be decided that failed to include the potential affirmative defense when specifically afforded an opportunity to object and the consequences of the failure were made clear;

(4) whether the appellant raised the affirmative defense or the administrative judge’s processing of the affirmative defense claim in the petition for review;

(5)  whether the appellant was represented during the course of the appeal before the administrative judge and on petition for review, and if not, the level of knowledge of Board proceedings possessed by the appellant; and

(6)  the likelihood that the presumptive abandonment of the affirmative defense was the product of confusion, or misleading or incorrect information provided by the agency or the Board.

Thurman v. USPS, 2022 MSPB 21 (Jul. 12, 2022).

In this case, the Board applied the above factors and determined that the appellant abandoned his affirmative defense, thus there was no basis for remand. As a result, the Board upheld the removal. We’ll discuss this one and others during September’s MSPB Law Week. Hopkins@FELTG.com

The Good News: New MSPB’s Recent Whistleblower Decision Makes a Lot of Sense

, , ,

By Ann Boehm, July 18, 2022

The new, fully constituted three-member MSPB (HOORAY!) sure surprised the heck out of me with its recent decision in Skarada v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2022 MSPB 17 (2022). Skarada filed an Individual Right of Action appeal claiming whistleblower retaliation, and he lost the appeal. Although he made a protected disclosure, he did not demonstrate by good ol’ “preponderant evidence” that he suffered a “covered personnel action.”

The MSPB tends to interpret “covered personnel action” quite broadly, but not in this case. In the decision, the MSPB reminds us that the employee has the burden to show a “significant change” in duties, responsibilities, or working conditions. Id. “[O]nly agency actions that, individually or collectively, have practical and significant effects on the overall nature and quality of an employee’s working conditions, duties, or responsibilities, and are likely to have a chilling effect on whistleblowing . . . will be found to constitute a covered personnel action.” Id.

So, what, pray tell, did Skarada think was reprisal? He said his chain of command removed some of his previous duties and responsibilities. He was told to stop attending certain meetings and was excluded from the interview and hiring process for two new hires – not enough to be a significant change in his duties or responsibilities, according to the MSPB.

He also claimed his chain of command subjected him to a hostile work environment. (We see that allegation a whole heck of a lot!) The alleged offenses: “his supervisor avoided him or walked away from him on multiple occasions, often responded to his questions by stating he did not know the answer and failed to provide him adequate guidance.” Id.

In addition, he claimed his chain of command treated him in a “hostile manner.” His supervisor “yelled” at him that he needed to fix something. His supervisor “’grabbed [his] arm to pull [him] into a room’” and “yelled” at him about reporting improper patient care; and the Chief of Staff “yelled at him, accused him of ‘making up our service data,’ and told him to ‘shut up’ during a meeting. Id. Lots of “yelling,” eh?

He claimed the meeting exclusions were also part of the hostile work environment. Plus, apparently the agency “convened investigations against him.” Id.

But was any of this harassment? Not according to the MSPB. Skarada failed to show that the agency’s actions “constituted harassment to such a degree that his working conditions were significantly and practically impacted.” Id.

In my humble opinion, the way the MSPB explains these allegedly harassing working conditions is good for the Republic: “[h]is chain of command may have been unresponsive to his requests or untimely in providing guidance, but such deficiencies do not amount to harassment.” Id. (emphasis added). Also, three incidents of “yelling” were “spread out over the course of a year and, while unprofessional, were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to significantly impact the appellant’s working conditions.” Id. (emphasis added).

The investigations were only “inconvenient” and did not result in any action against Skarada. The “remaining allegations represent mere disagreements over workplace policy.” Id. (emphasis added). Even though the MSPB acknowledged that he may have had an “unpleasant and unsupportive work environment,” he did not demonstrate a “significant change in his working conditions” under the Whistleblower Protection Act.

There you have it, my friends. Being unhappy at work does not equate to a hostile work environment. I don’t recommend supervisors yell at and grab their employees, but this case shows that a hostile work environment, at least in the whistleblower context, is much more than an unpleasant work environment. And that’s Good News. Boehm@FELTG.com

Editor’s Note: Register now for the 60-minute webinar The Why, When, and How of Whistleblower Law Under the New MSPB on September 8.

She/Her/Hers, He/Him/His, They/Them/Theirs: Pronouns in 2022

, , ,

By Deborah Hopkins, July 18, 2022

This article reflects current EEO law. Executive Order 14168 (Jan. 20, 2025)  limits the use of pronouns in the Federal workplace to he/she.

There are many polarizing topics (abortion, gun control, COVID-19 vaccines, political affiliation) in this country. We’re going to address another topic that generates feelings almost as strongly in certain circles: pronoun use and gender identity.

Last month, the EEOC introduced a gender marker option X for non-binary individuals who wish to file complaints. The State Department allows gender X on passports and travel documents, and some agencies are considering requiring all employees to identify their preferred pronouns in their email signatures.

Pronouns are an important piece of the gender identity equation, including within the context of the workplace. Refusal to use an employee’s preferred pronoun, or name, has been problematic for agencies in recent years, not just from a liability perspective but because of the impact of the harassment on the complainants.

As more employees share their pronouns in email signatures, on social media, and in participant lists on Zoom sessions, it’s worth a review of the law on this topic.

Pronouns fall under the sex discrimination umbrella of Title VII workplace protections, within the sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) category, and violations of pronoun or name use could result in illegal discrimination or harassment. Complainant v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 0120122376 (February 19, 2013), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520130241 (Jan.10, 2014). EEOC recently addressed a specific question in a Q & A document:

Q: Could use of pronouns or names that are inconsistent with an individual’s gender identity be considered harassment?

A: Yes, in certain circumstances. Unlawful harassment includes unwelcome conduct that is based on gender identity. To be unlawful, the conduct must be severe or pervasive when considered together with all other unwelcome conduct based on the individual’s sex including gender identity, thereby creating a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or offensive. In its decision in Lusardi v. Dep’t of the Army [EEOC Appeal No. 0120133395 (Apr. 1, 2015)], the Commission explained that although accidental misuse of a transgender employee’s preferred name and pronouns does not violate Title VII, intentionally and repeatedly using the wrong name and pronouns to refer to a transgender employee could contribute to an unlawful hostile work environment. [bold added]. EEOC’s Protections Against Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, Q. 11. [bold added]

While intentional misuse can violate the law, accidental misuse of a transgender employee’s preferred name and pronouns does not generally violate Title VII. EEOC’s Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Discrimination. Take, for example, Colleen M. v. USDA, EEOC Appeal No. 120130552 (May 25, 2016). In this case, the supervisor referred to the complainant, a trans female, as “Eric” even though the complainant no longer used that name.

There was no evidence the supervisor used that name intentionally, and “when it was brought to [the supervisor’s] attention that he made an error, he went to the union and explained to them that there was no malicious intent, and he apologized to Complainant.” This one instance followed by a prompt apology, did not state a claim.

A number of cases can help determine the point when pronoun misuse becomes severe or pervasive and creates a hostile environment. Hopkins@FELTG.com

Supervisors Should Learn to Recognize Signs of Suicidal Ideation

, ,

By Michael Rhoads, July 18, 2022

Shana Palmieri, LCSW and FELTG Instructor

For far too long, mental health services have carried a stigma. It’s important to know where to turn when you’re experiencing a mental health crisis or suicidal ideation.

The 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline came online last week, offering nationwide 24/7 access to mental health care. The Lifeline provides free and confidential support for people in distress, prevention and crisis resources, and best practices for professionals. This is a step forward and elevates mental health to the emergency service some desperately need. Of the many topics surrounding mental health, suicide is one of the most, if not the most, taboo.

According to the CDC’s website on suicide facts, an estimated 12.2 million American adults seriously thought about suicide in 2020. More than 3 million planned a suicide attempt, and 1.2 million attempted suicide. It affects all ages. In 2020, suicide was the second leading cause of death in people ages 10-14 and 25-34. It affects our friends, family, and our community at large.

The good news is suicide is preventable. Agencies can create policies that promote a protective environment and a culture of good mental health. It is important for supervisors to recognize the signs of those who might have suicidal ideations.   FELTG Instructor Shana Palmieri, LCSW will conduct a 75-minute session on Managing a Potentially Suicidal Employee on August 30 from 3 – 4:15 pm ET.

If you or someone you know is experiencing a mental health crisis or suicidal ideation, please seek help at your nearest hospital or crisis intervention center. Or dial 988. Be safe, and remember, we’re all in this together. Rhoads@FELTG.com

Post-Santos: Timing, Precedents, Retroactivity in Performance Cases

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, July 18, 2022

Most Federal employment law practitioners remember the day last year when the Federal Circuit issued Santos v. NASA. It set a new requirement for agencies to provide substantial evidence of unacceptable performance before implementing a performance improvement plan (PIP).

One of the questions that had lingered for more than a year was how the new MSPB would interpret and apply Santos to the performance-based removals and demotions in its PFR backlog. Would the ruling be retroactive or only apply to performance-based removals after March 11, 2021? Would MSPB reject Santos or try to find a way around it?

Well, because we have a functional MSPB, we now have an answer to those questions, and along with a new framework for agencies to follow in implementing removals or demotions under Chapter 43. Let’s look at the language of the case:

To defend an action under chapter 43, the agency must prove by substantial evidence that:

  • OPM approved its performance appraisal system and any significant changes thereto;
  • the agency communicated to the appellant the performance standards and critical elements of her position;
  • the appellant’s performance standards are valid under 5 U.S.C. § 4302(c)(1);
  • the appellant’s performance during the appraisal period was unacceptable in one or more critical elements;
  • the agency warned the appellant of the inadequacies in her performance during the appraisal period and gave her an adequate opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance; and
  • after an adequate improvement period, the appellant’s performance remained unacceptable in at least one critical element.

The Federal Circuit’s new precedent in Santos applies to all pending cases, regardless of when the events at issue took place.

Lee v. VA, 2022 MSPB 11 (May 12, 2022). [bold added]

The new element here is number 4, proof that the appellant’s performance at any point during the appraisal period (but before the PIP) was unacceptable. While most agencies pre-Santos likely did not make such information part of their removal cases, I imagine (or do I just hope?) that most agencies will be able to provide this information on remand. One of FELTG’s best practices has always been for agencies to keep documentation of the reasons why the supervisor implemented the PIP, even if that information wasn’t given to the employee. Anecdotally, I can tell you that most of the supervisors in my training classes have such documentation before they move to implement a PIP.

What does a remand look like in these cases? In Lee, MSPB ordered that “[o]n remand, the administrative judge shall accept evidence and argument on whether the agency proved by substantial evidence that the appellant’s pre-PIP performance was unacceptable. The administrative judge shall hold a supplemental hearing if appropriate.”

Some of you might be wondering why this VA case discusses use of a PIP. Under the 2017 VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act, a PIP isn’t required for the VA to remove an employee for unacceptable performance. That’s because the events in this case occurred before the implementation of the new VA law, and the MSPB agrees with the Federal Circuit “because it is based on performance that occurred several years before the Act went into effect. Accordingly, the appellant’s removal must be adjudicated under chapter 43 on remand.”

One case has provided us with a couple of very important answers to long-held questions. We at FELTG anxiously await the 3,300 remaining decisions yet to be issued. Hopkins@FELTG.com

No BS: Prepare Your Agency for Possible BA.5 Wave

, ,

By Dan Gephart, July 18, 2022

Folks, it ain’t over yet.  Forget the crowds of unmasked frolickers you’ve seen on your summer adventures or the lack of above-the-fold headlines about death rates or hospitalizations. COVID is still very real. And there’s a chance we are in for some hard times ahead. How hard those times will be, though, is still not certain.

The BA.5, the most dominant variation of omicron, has residents across Europe and China bracing for a widespread wave and potential lockdowns. Here in the United States, however, we don’t really know what we’re dealing with. Some far-reaching areas of the web will have you believe the BA.5 variant is more contagious than strep throat at a high school party. But ask others about BA.5 and they might think you’re talking about a new boy band.

Since most people take COVID tests at home and others don’t test at all, the numbers being reported each day could be woefully underestimated. Or not. The mixture of conflicting information and COVID fatigue makes it hard to get an accurate sense of the situation – and to get people to care about it.

Regardless of its level of transmissibility, the BA.5 variant is poised to hamper efforts at bringing employees back to physical offices, endanger those who already work in those offices, and diminish agency productivity. Serious repercussions of BA.5 could happen in the next couple weeks. Or picture this: A COVID wave running through your agency as you and your colleagues are trying to put a wrap on the fiscal year. What can you do?

First, take care of yourself. Your best tools are still to avoid crowds, mask up when necessary, and get vaccinated.

As for your agency, you may decide to screen employees for COVID. Some agencies have temperature screening plans in place. As the EEOC notes in its guidance, measuring an employee’s body temperature is a medical examination, which is not permissible under the Rehabilitation Act, with a few exceptions. Because “the CDC and state/local health authorities have acknowledged community spread of COVID-19 and issued attendant precautions, employers may measure employees’ body temperature.”

But temperature screens are not that useful. An ongoing UK study found fewer than one-third of the people who self-reported COVID symptoms included fever among them.

Requiring employees to take a COVID test before they return to the workplace is an option, although this is also tricky. The EEOC updated its guidance on COVID tests just this month. Like temperature screens, COVID tests are considered a medical examination, yet they can be used in certain situations.

The EEOC’s guidance:

A COVID-19 viral test is a medical examination within the meaning of the ADA. Therefore, if an employer implements screening protocols that include COVID-19 viral testing, the ADA requires that any mandatory medical test of employees be “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” Employer use of a COVID-19 viral test to screen employees who are or will be in the workplace will meet the “business necessity” standard when it is consistent with guidance from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and/or state/local public health authorities that is current at the time of testing. Be aware that CDC and other public health authorities periodically update and revise their recommendations about COVID-19 testing, and FDA may revise its guidance or emergency use authorizations, based on new information and changing conditions.

When assessing whether you meet the “business necessity standard” to administer COVID tests, consider the following:

  • The level of community transmission.
  • The vaccination status of employees.
  • The degree to which breakthrough infections are possible for employees who are up to date on vaccinations.
  • The ease of transmissibility of the current variants.
  • The possible severity of illness from the current variant.
  • How much contact employees have with each other in the workplace.
  • Potential impact on operations if an employee enters the workplace with COVID.

That’s a lot of information. If you want to keep your employees healthy and productive, keep an eye on guidance from the CDC and EEOC. That’s what we’re doing at FELTG. Every session we offer provides the most up-to-date information available. These upcoming events can help make your return-to-workplace transitions smoother:

  • Deborah Hopkins presents Navigating the Return to the Post-Pandemic Federal Workplace: Harassment, Reasonable Accommodation, and Misconduct on July 27.
  • FELTG Instructor Ricky Rowe will present Preparing for COVID-19 EEO Challenges in FY23 during FELTG’s annual Federal Workplace 2022: Accountability, Challenges, and Trends event August 29-September 1. Ricky’s session, which will take place on Tuesday, August 30 from 1-2:15 pm, will cover the latest on COVID tests and temperature screening.

Gephart@FELTG.com

Ask FELTG: Can Discipline Be Used as a ‘Prior’ to Aggravate the Penalty?

, ,

A FELTG reader shared the following hypothetical scenario:

An employee is issued a decision to suspend dated July 1. The dates of the suspension stated in the decision are August 3-7.  If any misconduct that happens between July 1 and August 7, can that be considered as a “prior” offense in a future disciplinary action? 

Also, how are paper suspensions implicated in this type of scenario?

And FELTG’s answer:

Discipline may not be relied upon as a prior until it has been fully served. In the example above, the discipline is not a considered a prior until after the suspension ends on August 7, regardless of the dates the proposal or decision letter are issued. See Fowler v. USPS, 77 MSPR 8 (1997), which discusses this concept in detail.

If the action is a paper suspension, where an employee is “suspended” on days they weren’t scheduled to work, then it doesn’t count as a suspension UNLESS the agency has an agreement with the employee (in writing), or a union contract says, that the paper suspension carries the weight of an X-day suspension for the purposes of discipline.  Otherwise, the law at 5 USC 7501.2 requires a loss of pay in order for an action to meet the definition of a suspension.

Good luck, and remember to always check the calendar when relying on past discipline.

Have a question? Ask FELTG.

The information presented here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Contacting FELTG in any way/format does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Don’t Ignore the Reasonable Accommodation Framework: Basic Mistakes Can Cost Dearly

,

By Deborah Hopkins, June 27, 2022

Updated July 10, 2025.

There are reports in the media about a new facial hair/shaving requirement for members of the military, and how this requirement will impact individuals with certain skin conditions. Did you know that few years ago the EEOC issued a decision on a DOD civilian-side case with very similar facts? See below for the original article.

—

The reasonable accommodation process is an entitlement that every Federal employee has a right to pursue, regardless of the job. A recent EEO case, which originated back in 2010, caught my attention.

The case involved 10 complainants who all suffered from a medical condition called pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB). According to the case, PFB is a chronic bacterial skin disorder that’s caused by shaving facial hair. PFB causes pain, skin irritation, pustules, rashes, sores, bleeding, scarring, and infection. Medically, PFB requires abstinence from being clean-shaven, and predominantly affects African American males.

The complainants worked as police officers, within the Pentagon Force Protection Agency. PFPA police officers are required to wear protective clothing and sometimes use personal protective equipment (PPE), as the job includes defending themselves and others against possible exposure to explosives, chemicals, or other weapons of mass destruction.

In 2010, the agency issued a new regulation that impacted police officers:

Supervisors shall ensure that all emergency response personnel are able to safely wear the Level C [Chemical-Biological-Radiological-Nuclear (CBRN)] PPE Ensemble at any time: facial hair that comes between the sealing surface of the face piece and the face or that interferes with the valve function is prohibited. Emergency response personnel who have a condition that interferes with the face-to-face piece seal or valve function shall not be permitted to wear the Level C CBRN PPE Ensemble. [bold added]

Practically speaking, this new regulation required PFPA Police Officers to be clean shaven because the CBRN ensemble would not seal properly if facial hair was present. The complainants, who up until that point had been permitted to have facial hair a quarter inch in length to accommodate their PFB, were now threatened with reassignment or removal if they did not shave their facial hair. They separately filed EEO complaints, alleging discrimination on the bases of race (African American), color (Black), and disability (PFB).

After a complicated procedural history including EEOC ordering supplemental investigations into the qualification standards for the jobs (which included the need for PPE), the EEOC found the standard on facial hair was appropriate because it was job-related and consistent with business necessity to have PPE that sealed properly.

However, the EEOC also found that the agency failed to meet its requirements to consider effective accommodations, namely alternative PPE that would work properly even in the presence of facial hair, because the complainants had all “passed their annual mask fit tests, and there was no evidence that they were unable to perform the essential functions of their position with the waiver or that any incident occurred where they were in danger or risked danger to others due to a respirator mask failure in an emergency situation.”

In this request for reconsideration, the EEOC held to its decision in the original appeal:

In sum, the Commission found the Agency failed to meet its burden of proving that there was no reasonable accommodation that would enable Complainants to meet the existing standard or an alternative approach that would still allow the PFPA Officers to perform the essential functions of their position. The decision concluded the Agency’s imposition of a blanket policy requiring all PFPA Officers to be clean-shaven regardless of their medical condition violated the Rehabilitation Act.

Cleveland C. et al. v. DOD, EEOC Request No. 2020003894 et al. (Apr. 4, 2022).

Now 12 years later, we finally have an outcome. The agency missed one of the basic pieces of the framework: Consider alternative accommodations that will still allow employees to perform essential functions within their medical restrictions. I can’t help but wonder what the damages will amount to in this case, given that 10 complainants were impacted for over a dozen years.

As employees are returning to the physical office and different workplace standards are being implemented in this post-pandemic world, agencies should remember that every reasonable accommodation request should be given an individualized assessment. Hopkins@FELTG.com

Related training: